It didn’t take long for the newly elected Liberal minister of defense, Harjit Sanjjin, to immerse himself in controversy over the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian military.

Last week, Chief of Defense Staff General Jonathan Vance announced that the military was taking steps to change the institution’s sexualized culture through a program called “Operation Honour.” In response, Defense Minister Sanjjin stated publicly that he didn’t believe that the military’s culture leads to sexual misconduct, contradicting Vance and undermining his efforts to implement change.[1]

General Jonathan Vance Source: Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press

Sanjjin’s statements effectively ignored the findings of Madame Justice Marie Deschamp, whose report on the issue was released on April 30, 2015. Deschamp found that “there is an ‘underlying sexualized culture’ within the Canadian Forces that is hostile to women and LGTBQ members. If left unchecked, this culture can lead to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault.”[2]

For decades, researchers studying the Canadian military and paramilitary organizations such as the RCMP have pointed to the fact that the culture of these organizations not only creates space for sexual misconduct to occur, but protects offenders when it does take place.

A culture that hides human rights abuses allows those violations to develop into an acceptable practice that then become imbedded and systemic within that culture.

Why would the minister state that he doesn’t believe that the culture of the military leads to sexual misconduct? He was not forthcoming. But we can speculate about his reasons.

Firstly, admitting that the military has a sexualized culture poses a number of problems for the federal government both at home and on the international stage. Internationally, our reputation and image as peacekeepers is tarnished when the rights of a minority group within our own armed forces are regularly violated.

At home, the presence of a sexist culture would lead to lower recruitment numbers for women. Canadian women are no longer willing trust an organization incapable of preventing sexual abuse from occurring or protecting them when it does.

Source: DND, Canadian Armed Forces

Potential lawsuits present another challenge, particularly when a government minister admits to the existence of a culture that is harmful to its own employees. Any such admission about the military would likely extend to other federal agencies such as the RCMP, which is already facing legal action over the sexual harassment of female Mounties.

Whatever Sanjjin’s reasons, denying that military culture does not lead to sexual misconduct does a disservice to those men and women who have served our country with integrity, honesty, and professionalism. It also castigates those who have suffered physically, emotionally, and mentally at the hands of their peers and minimizes their struggles as they work to move forward.

General Vance commented that it will take a long time for real cultural change to happen in the military. But at least he is taking steps to initiate it. Denials from the highest levels of government will only interfere with those attempts. I certainly hope that General Vance’s commitment is sincere. He has a long road ahead of him.

Today, as the first Syrian refugees arrive in Canada, I am thinking of those Canadians who oppose the government’s plans to accept 25,000 refugees by February 2016. Social media has been full of racist comments as well as derogatory and discriminatory remarks about the refugees, Muslims, and immigrants generally.

The roots of discriminatory attitudes toward ethnic groups run deep in Canada. In the past, fear, misinformation, and assumptions about racial difference often compromised the moral and religious ideals espoused by many Anglophones when it came to refugees and immigrants entering our country.

Religious discrimination also has a long history. Specific groups such as Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, and Jews have all been denied entry into Canada, or their rights as citizens ignored, at some point in our history because of their religious beliefs.

So, it should come as no surprise to learn that Canadians haven’t always been as welcoming to refugees as we’d like to think. Here are just a few examples:

1885 – A head tax of $50.00 is imposed on Chinese immigrants hired by the Conservative government to work on the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The federal government passes a number of exclusionary laws that forces them to live in segregated areas and prohibits them from voting, serving on juries, and accessing professions.

1907 – White Canadians carry out an “anti-Oriental” race riot in Vancouver damaging homes and businesses owned by Chinese and Japanese immigrants.

The aftermath of Vancouver’s race riot, 1907

1910-1912 – Public resistance to 1300 African American homesteaders fleeing persecution in Oklahoma to settle on the prairies causes the federal government to prepare legislation banning all African Americans from entering Canada. The order-in-council is never acted on for fear of reprisal from the United States and African Americans residing in eastern Canada.

1914 – The Komagata Maru, with 376 passengers on board, is detained in Vancouver Harbour for two months before being denied entry to Canada. The ship and its passengers are ordered to return to Calcutta. The action was thought to stem the “brown invasion” of Canada.

1939 – Canada’s Liberal government refuses to grant sanctuary to 907 Jewish passengers fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. The ship is returned to Europe where 254 of the passengers eventually perish in concentration camps.

Passengers aboard the St. Louis, 1939.

1942 – Following the bombing of Pearl Harbour, almost 22,000 people of Japanese descent, most born in Canada, are sent to internment camps in British Columbia and Alberta. Considered “enemy aliens,” their property and assets are seized and sold at public auction.

There have been times, however, when the Canadian government opened our doors to accept refugees in crisis:

1975 –Thousands of refugees flee the advance of communist rule in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. At least half a million die in boats trying to escape to neighbouring countries and the safety of refugee camps. Between 1975 and 1976, Canada accepts 5,000 “boat people” as they came to be known. Another 50,000 immigrate between 1979 and 1980. In total, Canada welcomes almost 60,000 refugees from the region.

My grandfather was a 16-year-old Catholic, Romanian farm labourer fleeing conscription in the Second Balkan War in 1913 when he immigrated to Canada with $30.00 in his pocket. I’m grateful that those Canadians who actively resisted the arrival of immigrants in 1913 did not prevail.

Hundreds of thousands of others like my grandfather have successfully risen to the challenge of adapting to a new language, a new country, and a new way of life. History shows us that xenophobia accomplishes little, but inclusion and acceptance can accomplish so much. Today, I’m especially proud to be a Canadian.

In 1972, the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted Resolution No. 3275 proclaiming 1975 as International Women’s Year (IWY). The year was designed to “promote equality between men and women” and to emphasize “women’s responsibility and important role in economic, social and cultural development at the national, regional and international levels” of society.[1] As a signatory Canada’s federal government was required to ensure that the terms of the resolution were carried out in this country, especially in its own institutions.

What was really accomplished? According to Chatelaine, one of the leading Canadian women’s magazines at the time, not much. Journalist Michele Landsberg, writing in “Has Women’s Year Laid an Egg?,”[2] observed that the exercise was largely a public relations opportunity for Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s governing Liberals.

Although the federal government had allocated $5 million toward promoting IWY through a program called “Why Not?,” it spent the bulk of the funds creating informational programs, conferences for men, designing pamphlets and buttons, and developing a number of mobile information vans that toured six of the provinces. All of these initiatives focused on the federal government’s programs rather than providing funding for local women’s groups and projects. The idea of the federal government raising awareness of women prompted one man to wonder if this was “the first time the government had heard of women?”

Women’s complaints about the inadequacies of the campaign prompted Prime Minister Trudeau to publicly offer up his own complaint: “That’s the trouble with women: they bitch after the fact.” It was an example of the prevailing attitudes toward women in the 1970s.

Landsberg did note that some minor progress was made in 1975. For example, women were no longer discriminated against under the Canada Pension Plan and they were no longer required to identify themselves as “Mrs.” on the voters’ list. They were also given more flexibility when deciding when to use their 15 weeks of paid maternity leave. Girls were allowed to join the military cadets for the first time. Rape victims were now legally protected from being questioned by defense attorneys about past sexual behaviour during court proceedings.

But serious injustices remained. The provinces dithered over marriage laws, specifically the division of assets and property rights during a divorce. Those decisions were left entirely to a judge’s discretion and, more often than not, judges decided in favour of men. Preschool children of working mothers were still without adequate childcare.

Women who worked full time in 1973 earned just over half of the wages paid to men who, on average, earned up to $3,834 a year more. Forty years later, little has changed. In 2011, according to Statistics Canada, women earned $32,100 a year, or just 66.7% of the $48,100 earned by men, an alarming statistic that should concern all Canadians.[3]

The failure of the government’s IWY campaign to effect real, lasting change for Canadian women in 1975 prompted Landsberg to conclude that change would only come when women themselves became more active in demanding their rights as citizens. Government grants, glossy ads, buttons, and kiosks did little to generate concrete cultural change in 1975, and they won’t today. Women’s inequality will only become a thing of the past when those who are committed to “fighting politically for human betterment” make their voices heard.

December 2015 will mark the forty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the findings of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada (RCSW). The RCSW was established in 1967 by Liberal prime minister Lester B. Pearson in response to pressure being exerted on the government by the women’s movement.

The commissioners’ mandate was to “to inquire into and report upon the status of women in Canada, and to recommend what steps might be taken by the federal government to ensure for women equal opportunities with men in all aspects of Canadian society.”[1] Florence Bird was chosen to lead the enquiry, the first time in history a woman had been appointed to chair a royal commission.

Many in Canada were opposed to the establishment of the commission, especially male politicians and journalists. Several editorial cartoonists mocked the commissioners, feminists, and women who were testifying during hearings. And in the House of Commons, where women were not generally considered to be voting constituents, Conservative member Terry Nugent bluntly called the idea of an inquiry “utter balderdash.” Nugent commented during the debate that the best approach to handling women was to simply agree with them when they were right and agree with them when they were wrong.[2]

The RCSW held a series of public hearings between April and October of 1968 in numerous locations across the country. They received a total of 468 briefs and some 1,000 letters of opinion from individuals and organizations in addition to submissions from 890 witnesses. In their final report released in December 1970, the commissioners made 167 recommendations that clearly documented women’s concerns over inequality between genders in Canadian society.[3]

Their concerns were justified. At the time in Canada, there was just one female member of parliament sitting in the midst of 263 men. There were four female senators (out of 102) sitting in the upper chamber, and only 14 of 889 judges in Canada were women.[4] The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada’s federal police force, did not allow women in its ranks. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was still twelve years away from development. Sexual harassment case law was still ten years away and it was not until 1983 that the Canadian Human Rights Act included sexual harassment as a discriminatory practice.

The Commission’s final report was not perfect. Visible minorities and immigrant women were not recognized, nor were women with disabilities. A discussion on sexual orientation and gay rights was also missing, and the issue of violence against women was not addressed.

Nevertheless, the recommendations made by the commissioners included wider access to birth control, improved access to higher education, the inclusion of women in the RCMP, changes to the Indian Act, employment equity, access to trades in the Canadian Armed Forces, paid maternity leave, family law, and pensions. All were identified as fundamental rights for women in Canada. Most of the recommendations have since been enacted, a claim few royal commissions before or since can make.

The commission’s findings represented a milestone for women’s rights in Canada. Today, Canadian women can look to the RCSW as an important touchstone in the ongoing fight for equality. We can thank the women from all walks of Canadian life who participated in the hearings and made submissions, as well as the commissioners, for their work in helping to establish the rights we all enjoy today.

Last week a friend posted a comment on her Facebook page about a homeless person sleeping on the pavement in front of her favourite coffee shop. She expressed sympathy, not for the homeless person, but for the owner of the coffee shop who had to tolerate this person sleeping in front of their business.

She further noted that there was no reason why the city shouldn’t be moving these people along to nearby shelters where they can “get all the free food they want.” She complained about the “earth muffin” attitude in the city toward the homeless, who she said felt a sense of “entitlement to sit, sleep, relieve, etc. anywhere they want.” She then posted a photograph of the sleeping person online.

Her comments, and those her post generated, reflected the lack of knowledge most Canadians have about the homeless. One person thought that many homeless people have homes but choose to live on the streets instead. My friend observed that homeless people are living with the consequences of their own bad choices.

But it’s not quite that simple. Homelessness is the result of an accumulation of a number of factors, not the result of one single cause or a bad decision. Yes, some homeless people do have addictions and many struggle with mental illness. Most have made poor life choices.

For example, most people don’t realize that a significant number of homeless people have jobs but live in shelters because they can’t find affordable housing, especially in cities where the cost of living is high.

Homeless youth often struggle financially as they make the transition from foster care to independent living. People leaving the correctional system, those exiting mental health facilities, immigrants, and refugees are also at risk of becoming homeless. So are seniors on fixed incomes.

Personal and relational factors also figure into the equation. Many homeless people have suffered some type of trauma in their lives such as the death of a loved one, brain injuries, fetal alcohol syndrome, domestic violence, accident, child abuse, rape, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Job loss, layoffs, foreclosures, and the loss of unemployment or welfare benefits are also contributing factors.

Every homeless person has a history. Just like the rest of us who have a roof over our head.

Yes, homelessness is hard to look at. That’s because it demands a response from each one of us. Should we see people living on the street as a problem? Should they be corralled away so we don’t have to look at them? Or do they deserve to be seen?

The homeless are citizens of our cities too. In our democratic society, they have the same basic human rights that we all enjoy. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. They are, after all, human beings.

So, the next time you see a homeless person in front of your favourite coffee shop check to make sure they’re okay. Then buy them a meal or give them a gift card so they can purchase one later. Your kindness will not only help them out, but it will go a long way toward dispelling some of the myths about homelessness that we all need to put to rest.

To read an inspiring story about homelessness pick up a copy of Same Kind of Different As Me: A Modern-day Slave, an International Art Dealer, and the Unlikely Woman Who Bound Them Together by Ron Hall and Denver Moore.

Sometimes we don’t mind donating money toward helping people who are struggling with addiction or mental illness. But when we talk about helping the “working poor” questions are raised about their worthiness to receive that help.

Most Canadians are descendants of immigrants who came to Canada looking for a better quality of life. In many cases, their ancestors worked extremely hard to gain the economic prosperity that they enjoy today. So, it is not unusual for them to question why the working poor need assistance; shouldn’t they just work harder to get ahead?

Source-www.aflcio.org

Although the working poor maintain employment they remain in poverty. In 2001, they numbered 653,000 Canadians. Young people, single parents, recent immigrants, Aboriginal people, persons with a long-term illness, seniors, and workers whose spouse is unemployed, make up the majority of the working poor. Additionally, 1.5 million persons, usually dependent children, are directly affected by the low income their parent(s) earn.[1]

The working poor can be self-employed or may work full- or part-time at contract, temporary, or seasonal jobs, usually at the minimum wage level. Most will earn less than $20,000.00 per year, $10,000.00 below the poverty line.[2] None of them have benefits such as medical, dental, pension, or life insurance which contributes to their poverty.

Family plays the greatest role in the economic uncertainty of the working poor. The greater the number of dependents, the higher the probability of a worker earning wages below the poverty line. A disabled spouse, partner, or child to support is also a factor. The level of education a wage earner has acquired is a determinant, as is a person’s ability to integrate into the labour market.

Why don’t they just work harder to get ahead?

In Canada, the working poor are exerting a significant amount of effort toward improving their lives. According to government researchers, “In 2001, most low-income workers demonstrated a significant work effort: 76% of them stated they had had 1,500 hours or more of paid work during the year. This percentage is slightly lower than that of workers who were not in a low-income situation in 2001 (88%).”[3] The working poor are working hard, many of them at more than one job each year.

Yet most find it difficult to make ends meet. They are a growing number of Canadians who work but find it necessary to visit food banks, soup kitchens, used clothing stores, and charities that provide food. It is no longer unusual to see entire families in line waiting for a nightly meal.

Source-publichealthwatch.wordpress.com

So, please consider the working poor the next time you make a charitable donation. Don’t assume that the people who use the services provided by charitable organizations are lazy or uninterested in bettering themselves. The lives of the working poor are more complicated and challenging than that, and they deserve to live with dignity and respect despite their income level.

[2] “The Canadian Policy Research Networks defines a low-paid worker as someone who works full time throughout the year but who earns less than $20,000.” Fleury and Fortin, “Research Briefs,” f.n. 3. Statistics Canada determined that the Low Income Cut-Off (poverty line) was $30,487.00 after taxes in 2011. See http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2012002/lico-sfr-eng.htm.

A number of women were instrumental in achieving the gains made by activists in the women’s movement during the 1960s and 70s. Their activism on behalf of women’s rights laid the groundwork for many of the social, economic, and political rights that Canadian women enjoy today.

Judy LaMarsh was one of these women. LaMarsh served as a member of the Canadian Women’s Army Corps from 1943-1946, obtaining the rank of sergeant. She trained as a lawyer following the war, entering politics in 1960 and winning her first seat in 1963 as a member of Parliament for the riding of Niagara Falls, Ontario. LaMarsh held a number of portfolios under the leadership of Liberal prime minister Lester B. Pearson, her most important being Secretary of State from 1965-68. She was only the second woman in Canadian history to hold a Cabinet post.

Judy LaMarsh (1924-1980)

LaMarsh proved to be an important ally within the government for the Canadian women’s movement. She had been quietly encouraging Pearson to establish a Royal Commission on the Status of Women since taking office. In her memoirs, LaMarsh claimed that Pearson had been prepared to accept her advice in 1965 until she publicly mentioned the need for a Royal Commission at a national women’s meeting. It was a comment that was vehemently attacked in the press by a number of male journalists. According to LaMarsh, “Pearson backed off as if stung with a nettle.”[1]

LaMarsh repeatedly raised the issue with him afterwards, but Pearson remained obdurate. It was not until 1967 that a door opened for LaMarsh to revisit the issue with the prime minister. On 5 January, journalist Barry Craig of the Toronto Globe and Mail published a threat made during an interview by Laura Sabia of the Committee for the Equality of Women in Canada (CEWC). Sabia impulsively told Craig that three million women were prepared to march on Parliament Hill to demand a Royal Commission if the government failed to meet its demands. LaMarsh later recalled that Pearson was “sufficiently frightened” by the prospect and wanted to re-open talks with the CEWC.[2]

Three days after Sabia’s threat was published, LaMarsh strategically delivered a public response, via the media, meant to appease the prime minister and members of the Cabinet. She warned the CEWC about its strident tone, cautioning that the “Prime Minister and the Cabinet are men as other men and if you have harpies harping at them you will just get their backs up and they won’t do anything. I think the women have made their point and they should just wait a few weeks and see what happens.”[3] By appearing to offer a more reasoned approach to the issue by publicly castigating the “harpies,” LaMarsh was pandering to male concepts of women and their proper role in society.

The tactic worked because it allowed Pearson to appear to be making an informed, rather than a reactive, decision. Some feminists later noted that LaMarsh’s pressure tactics inside the Cabinet were more important in gaining a Royal Commission than Sabia’s threatened march on Parliament Hill.[4] The approach that was the most influential has been a question of debate for decades. The answer is probably that both tactics were successful because on 16 February 1967, a Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada was created.

2015: The Fortieth Anniversary of the United Nations’

International Women’s Year, 1975

[1] Judy LaMarsh, Memoirs of a Bird in a Gilded Cage (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1968), 301. [2] Morris, “‘Determination and Thoroughness’,” 15. [3] Rudy Platiel, “Stop harping about a royal commission, Judy LaMarsh warns women’s group,” The Globe and Mail, 09 January 1967, 13. [4] Cerise Morris, “‘Determination and Thoroughness’: The Movement for a Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada,” Atlantis 5:2 (Spring 1980): 16.

2015: The Fortieth Anniversary of the United Nations’

International Women’s Year, 1975

As strange as it may seem to us in the twenty-first century, women’s rights were not always equated with human rights in Canada. In the 1940s, a number of Canadian provinces began to develop human rights legislation, particularly in an effort to protect racial minorities against discrimination. Saskatchewan was the first, enacting a statutory Bill of Rights in 1947.

Source: nextyearcountrynews.blogspot.com

The issue of fair wages for women in the workplace was just beginning to be addressed, too. Ontario was the first to pass the Female Employees Fair Remuneration Act in 1951, with most other provinces following suit over the next ten years.[1] In 1960, the federal government developed a Bill of Rights which recognized the rights of Canadians to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, association, and due process.[2] None of these pieces of legislation, however, made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex.

When Canada became a member of the United Nation’s (UN) Status of Women Commission in 1958, some women’s groups were quick to point out that the federal government violated its commitment by failing to implement employment equity policies in its own institutions. Women were required to resign from their civil service jobs as soon as they married or became pregnant. Several government agencies such as the RCMP and the armed forces resisted employing women, Aboriginal people, and ethnic and cultural minorities with impunity.

March on International Women’s Day, 1970s

Activists pushed the federal government to honour the agreements it had ratified but not yet acted upon, with little success.

In 1968, the UN designated the year as the International Year for Human Rights. The Canadian government planned a number of events to celebrate. A conference was being organized, but not one woman was appointed to the planning committee. It was an ironic development that was not lost on activists who feared that any human rights

Abortion Caravan protestors, 1970 – Source: socialist.ca

commission investigating the status of women in Canada would be comprised solely of men. As the planning for the humans rights conference demonstrated, their fears were justified and activists continued to lobby the government to establish a royal commission instead. The Canadian government hesitated on the grounds that Québec resisted federal impingement on the jurisdiction of the provinces. Judy LaMarsh, the only woman on the federal cabinet in 1968, quipped that it seemed “odd to think that in some men’s minds women belong predominantly to the provinces.”[3]

It was only after activists threatened to march three million women to protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario if the government continued to refuse to establish a royal commission that the prime minister finally relented.

On 16 February 1967, Order-in-Council PC 1967-312 was approved by the Governor General and a Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada was created. The commissioners were mandated to “inquire into and report upon the status of women in Canada, and to recommend what steps might be taken by the federal government to ensure for women equal opportunities with men in all aspects of Canadian society.”[4]

It was a turning point for women’s rights in this country. The commission’s hearings and its final report (published in 1970) received a considerable amount of media coverage which drew attention, not all of it positive, to the issue of women’s inequality in Canada.

A number of Canadian women were instrumental in advancing the rights of women throughout the decade. Their stories will be featured in upcoming blogs in celebration of the United Nation’s fortieth anniversary of International Women’s Year (1975).

In the wake of Black Friday and Cyber Monday, I’m overloaded with the continuous demands placed on me to spend money. The commercialism associated with gift-giving appeals to the side of us that values self-gratification before the needs of others. Advertisers and retailers are well aware that in North America more altruistic pursuits are often secondary on our list of priorities.

There is a way to take back the holiday season and to refocus our energies on what is really important. Giving Tuesday, December 2 is a national day of volunteering and giving back to our communities.

You can give back by volunteering or by making a financial donation to one of the many charitable groups in Canada who are in need of finances to conduct research, heal disease, provide clothing, treat PTSD, feed children, drive a senior, supply drinking water, buy toys, cook a Christmas dinner, or to simply keep in operation.

Justin Trudeau’s expulsion of two MPs from the Liberal caucus for misconduct toward two female MPs is yet another reminder that harassment in the workplace is rife. Even at the highest levels of government where human rights laws designed to protect Canadians are crafted, no such standard exists for parliamentarians.

While politicians, pundits, and journalists seem surprised that harassment is still a part of the workplace – after all, this is 2014 – it appears that the problem is not going away soon. The fact that it is against the law does little to deter the practice. From the halls of parliament to the flight decks of Air Canada’s aircraft, harassment in the workplace, especially toward female employees, is still considered an acceptable practice.

Why? Because despite legislation and official policies harassment is all about power, both personal and organizational. There are plenty of reasons why women who make accusations of harassment want to remain anonymous. But the main reason is a fear of retaliation. Fear is what every harasser counts on to maintain his or her dominance and control in the workplace without consequences. The fear of retaliation is what creates an unsafe work environment for those who speak out.

It is time to stop being surprised that harassment is still taking place. This is 2014 but we have a long way to go to end the practice. It is time for all of us to stand up to harassing behaviour when we encounter it. It is time to stop laughing at insults, repeating racist comments, engaging in sexual innuendo, and sending emails that demean others. And it is time to stop displaying pornography in the workplace. It is up to each of us to play an active role in challenging those who engage in the behaviour. Only then will the rights of every person to work in a harassment-free environment be realized.